Marriage helpfile changes

[slvrmoontiger]

Maybe with marriages there isn't a preference in love. However, when people refer to each other as mates its usually because there is love involved.

[Ourla]

handfast

    A hold, grasp; custody, power of confining or keeping; A contract, agreement, covenant; specifically betrothal, espousal; To pledge; to bind; To betroth by joining hands, in order to allow cohabitation before the celebration of marriage; to marry provisionally; Fast by contract; betrothed ...
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/handfast

[Lizzie]

handfast

  A hold, grasp; custody, power of confining or keeping; A contract, agreement, covenant; specifically betrothal, espousal; To pledge; to bind; To betroth by joining hands, in order to allow cohabitation before the celebration of marriage; to marry provisionally; Fast by contract; betrothed ...
   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/handfast

That word carries with it steamtrunks full of real-world pagan ritualistic religious connotation - even more than marriage, which is also used to describe food flavor combinations (especially wines). In fantasy, the idea of "handfasting" just reeks of cheesy Reniassance Festival jargon.

[Nyr]

handfast

  A hold, grasp; custody, power of confining or keeping; A contract, agreement, covenant; specifically betrothal, espousal; To pledge; to bind; To betroth by joining hands, in order to allow cohabitation before the celebration of marriage; to marry provisionally; Fast by contract; betrothed ...
   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/handfast

That word carries with it steamtrunks full of real-world pagan ritualistic religious connotation - even more than marriage, which is also used to describe food flavor combinations (especially wines). In fantasy, the idea of "handfasting" just reeks of cheesy Reniassance Festival jargon.

Agreed. I think we want to keep that out of the game quite as much as possible for quite similar reasons.  Like I mentioned in the OP, we know we need to review the bard process of handbinding (the bardic thing that has almost never been done) for the same reason:  it is anachronistic and paints a pretty picture that simply doesn't exist in Zalanthas, or even quite that much in Tuluki Zalanthan History.

Nobles and GMH have their marriage contracts that are business arrangements.

Commoners that are mated or for whatever reason "temporarily or permanently monogamous" probably should come up with something less blatant, and something that isn't so much a copy of what nobles and merchants do.  Whether that should be documented or developed in-game remains to be seen.  A book series I've enjoyed from time to time has a tribe that has close associations with birds as a totem animal.  The tribe is also quite polyamorous.  When they fancy someone, they give a bird's feathers to the person as an overture ("hey you're interesting, let's get busy").  This can be turned down ("sorry, not interested"). If the other party wears the feather, it's like accepting the date ("I'm willing to see how this goes"). If the relationship progresses beyond the point of basic interest and into the area of devotion or long-term interest, a feather from their specific bird totem is given to the partner ("Let's make this a long-term thing"). This can be turned down, too ("whoa, slow down, Talia, I'm not that into you, I also like Amosina"), but if accepted and worn, it's like "yeah, we're mates, at least for now."  Returning someone's feather was quite a bit like being turned down on a date/being broken up with.

I'm not saying we need something exactly like that, but it might have some appeal.

[Jherlen]

When I was in Hawaii for my honeymoon recently, they told us a story of how native Hawaiians (men and women both) would wear flowers in their hair to signify relationship status. Wear the flower on the left, you're single; on the right, you're taken; and (so the saying goes) the top of your head just meant you were looking for someone to spend the night with. Be it feathers or flowers or beads or piercings or whatever, it'd be cool if commoners had some way to share their relationship status / desire. Maybe Kadius should start a new fashion trend.

[Barsook]

When I was in Hawaii for my honeymoon recently, they told us a story of how native Hawaiians (men and women both) would wear flowers in their hair to signify relationship status. Wear the flower on the left, you're single; on the right, you're taken; and (so the saying goes) the top of your head just meant you were looking for someone to spend the night with. Be it feathers or flowers or beads or piercings or whatever, it'd be cool if commoners had some way to share their relationship status / desire. Maybe Kadius should start a new fashion trend.

+1

[ShaLeah]

When I was in Hawaii for my honeymoon recently, they told us a story of how native Hawaiians (men and women both) would wear flowers in their hair to signify relationship status. Wear the flower on the left, you're single; on the right, you're taken; and (so the saying goes) the top of your head just meant you were looking for someone to spend the night with. Be it feathers or flowers or beads or piercings or whatever, it'd be cool if commoners had some way to share their relationship status / desire. Maybe Kadius should start a new fashion trend.

+1

Allanak already has a merchant selling "friendship" rings, the merchant shouts out to give your sweetheart a ring. No reason why Kadius can't expand on it but that has nothing to do with marriage. Mating on Zalanthas deserves its own thread. Especially considering that if they're mating for life in a monogamy situation (or Amos, Talia and Talula wanna make it a threeway monogamy where they all do each other) they're doing something that is very rare and for as long as I have been in game it's never worked out for all those involved.

I've always liked that marriage is a contract on Arm, that that lowest tier House can buy some highest tier blood for the right price. I also like that the GMHs have their own deal, mimicking the upper crust and maintaining that separation from "regular" commoners by mingling (legally, politically) with other GMH blood.

I am not sure if they would feel that a specific word would be needed to signify a contracted mating.

They've always been called marriage contracts and I would think that the noble houses would have a bad taste in their silver-spoon-fed mouths at their even being seen as similar by the common folk who hear and aren't smart enough to not understand.


Personally I'd prefer a staff approved term.

[Molten Heart]

Could be called a coupling, bonding or even a merger.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Heartmate.

[ShaLeah]

Heartmate.

... between GMH people? Maybe coinpursemate 

[Bushranger]

Only the husband would have a coinpurse tucked inside his leggings ShaLeah right below his merchant's rod. This is a great name between two husbands but what if there is a wife involved, what would we call her?

[FantasyWriter]

GMH Spouses: Contractual Partners.
GMH Marriage: Contractual Coupling/Binding/Joining.

[Lizzie]

Why does the term have to have anything to do with real life at all? Why not call it Olkath? Me and Bitsy Salarr will have an Olkath next Nekrete. She'll be my Olka, I'll be her Olki, for two years or until she bears me a male son, whichever comes first.

If you can have Kurac-das and Kurac-dis, you can make up something for GMH contracts.

[ShaLeah]

Why does the term have to have anything to do with real life at all? Why not call it Olkath? Me and Bitsy Salarr will have an Olkath next Nekrete. She'll be my Olka, I'll be her Olki, for two years or until she bears me a male son, whichever comes first.

If you can have Kurac-das and Kurac-dis, you can make up something for GMH contracts.

I like that. I like that a lot. Except I am reminded of killer mages who shoots lightning bolts out of the filthy disgusting gicky fingertips.

Someone make up more named for it!

[Ouroboros]

Personally I don't see much reason to have a separate term for marriage between Nobles and between GMH family members. Both are performed for the same exact reasons, political, social and economic benefits, and are treated as contracts entirely. They're arranged marriages and almost never about love. Even if love does come into it, it remains a happy accident as the marriage itself would never be arranged by the respective Houses if it didn't offer other perks. Further, GMH family members already emulate Nobility in so many other ways, and are high enough in the social caste of both north and south, that I don't think Nobles would bat an eyelash at the same term used for GMH unions. So I would simply let both continue to use the term "marriage contracts" for what this is. If something different was needed, sure, "merger" would work given it's business and financial connotations.

With regards to commoners though, I don't think there's a place for it at all in Zalanthas. Personally I feel most "mated" situations are already often pushing the borders of what's acceptable, simply because we bring our real-life experiences into it. Concepts of monogamy in general push the boundaries of documentation and the entire flavor of Zalanthas. In a world of murder, corruption and betrayal, love has very little breathing room. What "mate" should imply, but often doesn't, is simply, "This is who I find it advantageous to have sex with right now, and I care about them to the extent that I care about my own self-preservation and interests." I would argue that monogamy itself between "mates" isn't even necessary, and should only be adhered to if one of the two raises a big enough stink about it. And even then, the party raising the stink should be aware of how unusual their feelings are in relation to the rest of the world. Even couples that have children wouldn't need to necessarily remain monogamous, unless either or both parties couldn't financially sustain more mates or children. Tribes are the only exception to this in some regards, because as with most things, they have their own traditions and ways of handling social situations and each one is different. The tribal docs have dealt with this well I think though, and serve their purpose.

Handfasting or any other concept of formal unions has no place with commoners. It's essentially a few steps worse than draping yourself in silk as a low-class commoner, and should get an equally worse response from high-born and other powers that be. The problem is that some PCs, draped in the role of heroes as most are, begin to forget their place in society and start to emulate Nobles and GMH family members (or in some cases even tribes) without repercussions. I feel the problem at it's core has to do with the fact that the wealth a PC can earn makes most of the issues their commoner class would face obsolete, and we lack enough other difficulties to remind PCs of their place. On the flip-side, we often let these PCs live like nobles until it becomes too blatant, and then the hammer strikes down too hard. Perhaps what's needed are more reminders of one's place in society, and the current changes in the North seem to be doing a good job of that right now.

If we start coming up with alternatives to emulate Noble marriages for commoners, even if it's the handing of a feather, my fear is that we'd be removing one more reminder of the social limitations commoners face and live with. So for me, the safest way to deal with this would be clear-cut rules on the fact no form of union exists or is recognized among commoners. If exceptions come to exist, staff can deal with them case-by-case, since their number will be low to begin with by nature of documentation "forbidding" them. And if some form of commoner union has to exist, because we as players are intent on injecting our RL mindset into the game, then let it develop organically through IC events. No social change happens in Zalanthas without spilled blood, so if some commoners decide the time has come for their class to get hitched and recognized... Well, they can ask a stump about Thrain Ironsword and start planning their revolution in the name of love.

[Red Ranger]

Why does the term have to have anything to do with real life at all? Why not call it Olkath? Me and Bitsy Salarr will have an Olkath next Nekrete. She'll be my Olka, I'll be her Olki, for two years or until she bears me a male son, whichever comes first.

If you can have Kurac-das and Kurac-dis, you can make up something for GMH contracts.

I'll add my support for Lizzie here. I'm a long time fan of Zalanthan specific terms, including the Kuraci naming convention. For "marriage", I'm in favor of a term more like... Com-Shuck (with a Groosalugg, of course).

[janeshephard]

Current help file is fine. We should focus on changes involving more people.

[Barzalene]

Personally I don't see much reason to have a separate term for marriage between Nobles and between GMH family members. Both are performed for the same exact reasons, political, social and economic benefits, and are treated as contracts entirely. They're arranged marriages and almost never about love. Even if love does come into it, it remains a happy accident as the marriage itself would never be arranged by the respective Houses if it didn't offer other perks. Further, GMH family members already emulate Nobility in so many other ways, and are high enough in the social caste of both north and south, that I don't think Nobles would bat an eyelash at the same term used for GMH unions. So I would simply let both continue to use the term "marriage contracts" for what this is. If something different was needed, sure, "merger" would work given it's business and financial connotations.

With regards to commoners though, I don't think there's a place for it at all in Zalanthas. Personally I feel most "mated" situations are already often pushing the borders of what's acceptable, simply because we bring our real-life experiences into it. Concepts of monogamy in general push the boundaries of documentation and the entire flavor of Zalanthas. In a world of murder, corruption and betrayal, love has very little breathing room. What "mate" should imply, but often doesn't, is simply, "This is who I find it advantageous to have sex with right now, and I care about them to the extent that I care about my own self-preservation and interests." I would argue that monogamy itself between "mates" isn't even necessary, and should only be adhered to if one of the two raises a big enough stink about it. And even then, the party raising the stink should be aware of how unusual their feelings are in relation to the rest of the world. Even couples that have children wouldn't need to necessarily remain monogamous, unless either or both parties couldn't financially sustain more mates or children. Tribes are the only exception to this in some regards, because as with most things, they have their own traditions and ways of handling social situations and each one is different. The tribal docs have dealt with this well I think though, and serve their purpose.

Handfasting or any other concept of formal unions has no place with commoners. It's essentially a few steps worse than draping yourself in silk as a low-class commoner, and should get an equally worse response from high-born and other powers that be. The problem is that some PCs, draped in the role of heroes as most are, begin to forget their place in society and start to emulate Nobles and GMH family members (or in some cases even tribes) without repercussions. I feel the problem at it's core has to do with the fact that the wealth a PC can earn makes most of the issues their commoner class would face obsolete, and we lack enough other difficulties to remind PCs of their place. On the flip-side, we often let these PCs live like nobles until it becomes too blatant, and then the hammer strikes down too hard. Perhaps what's needed are more reminders of one's place in society, and the current changes in the North seem to be doing a good job of that right now.

If we start coming up with alternatives to emulate Noble marriages for commoners, even if it's the handing of a feather, my fear is that we'd be removing one more reminder of the social limitations commoners face and live with. So for me, the safest way to deal with this would be clear-cut rules on the fact no form of union exists or is recognized among commoners. If exceptions come to exist, staff can deal with them case-by-case, since their number will be low to begin with by nature of documentation "forbidding" them. And if some form of commoner union has to exist, because we as players are intent on injecting our RL mindset into the game, then let it develop organically through IC events. No social change happens in Zalanthas without spilled blood, so if some commoners decide the time has come for their class to get hitched and recognized... Well, they can ask a stump about Thrain Ironsword and start planning their revolution in the name of love.

I was going to expound on this. But no, I think this is completely right.

[Taven]

I thought maybe moving the discussion about what commoner mating habits are to another thread might be useful.

[slvrmoontiger]

Current help file is fine. We should focus on changes involving more people.

+1

Marriage is for Noble and GMH Family members this doesn't affect a good enough bases of population to take time with this. Documentation is clear and concise. Lets move onto bigger and better things.

[Desertman]

Current help file is fine. We should focus on changes involving more people.

+1

Marriage is for Noble and GMH Family members this doesn't affect a good enough bases of population to take time with this. Documentation is clear and concise. Lets move onto bigger and better things.

I'm sure half the player base knows what triggered this change.

I'm also pretty sure it took Nyr the better part of a half an hour to change those docs to clarify things.

I doubt he spent weeks of the staff's time working on this heh.

[slvrmoontiger]

Krath, I'm going to double post because I can't on my computer (not sure if its because its linux or what) get the edit function to work...

Last thought on this is that as I have already stated several times. I think this is something you need to discuss with whoever you plan on becoming mates with BEFORE you actually state you ARE mates. That alone would save from the confusion.

[Nyr]

Heartmate.

Definitely no.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Lol.

[valeria]

Anyone want to be my heartmate?